Fourth World
June 28, 2006
Last week Tony Blair came back from the European Union summit full of all the usual blather about unity and progress, and in passing he referred to the need to protect borders and deal with the problem of asylum seekers.
In response to the usual headlines in the Mail and Express, asylum is routinely identified as a problem with very little reporting of the life of asylum seekers or the size of the problem, or indeed anything about reasons why people seek asylum.
I don’t know if Tony Blair read the UN Report in April on the “The State of the World’s Refugees: Human Displacement in the New Millennium”. Had he done so he might have taken a more sanguine view of the situation.
The report shows that across the globe there are 9.2 million refugees, the lowest figure for 25 years. Only 14 years ago, the comparative figure was 18 million. However, this can be misleading as the 1951 Geneva Convention does not identify internally displaced people who are usually fleeing conflicts conveniently identified as “internal”. This accounts for some 25 million people.
Whilst the European leaders seek ways to deport people to countries that are not signatories to the 1951 Convention, or indeed the 1988 UN Convention on Torture, they would do well to reflect on the reality of life in the 21st century for many thousands of very poor people.
The lives of tourists in the Canary Islands are apparently disturbed by African migrants arriving in tiny open boats from Senegal and Mauritania. Those that make it apply for asylum in Spain and try and head for mainland Europe. Tragically, many do not make it and even Spanish Police admit to at least 1,200 deaths every year trying to make the dangerous crossing. This grim death toll is on top of all the other deaths in attempted crossings of the Mediterranean either to Spain, Malta, Italy and Greece. It is no exaggeration to say that many thousands die every year.
It might be convenient for the EU leaders to blame “people smugglers” for the deaths, but this completely misses the point. We seem to have reached a nadir of inhumanity when these human tragedies gain barely a passing mention in the world’s media, whereas a fairground accident in the USA is flashed around the globe by satellite TV as a major story.
Europe is not alone in this, with many deaths every year of migrants trying to enter the USA or in South East Asia to go to Australia.
To look into this whole issue is to start to uncover the murky fourth world of twilight existences that the gloss of western information does not want to admit to.
Western countries always proclaim their determination to prevent illegal immigration, but in reality they prosper from it and almost encourage it. In the Gulf States the poor from Somalia, Bangladesh and Pakistan build the glittering high rise hotels, clean the rooms and care for the babies and sick. They have no civic rights and their discipline is the fear of being deported to poverty.
In the USA the vast number of Mexican and Central American people ensure that agriculture, office cleaning, tourism personal care are provided for the relatively better off. Denied rights and protection by their lack of status, they work to send money home in the desperate hope that one day their family will be able to join them and lead normal lives. The growing sense of anger and unity of the community lead to the recent marches and demonstrations when Middle America was forced to wake up and realise their dependence on people they had hitherto despised. The political reaction was interesting, with the White House talking vaguely about assimilation whilst at the same time deploying the National Guard to the US – Mexico border. It can only be a matter of time before the poor and desperate from Central America, having travelled by bus, truck and on foot in search of survival, are shot as they try to enter the USA. The treatment of Mexicans in the USA, and the inability of the Government of President Fox to defend them, has become an election issue in next Sunday’s presidential election. The left candidate of the PRD, Lopez Obrador, hopes to win on a wave of anger and indignation.
What is happening in the USA is also repeated in Europe with a large number of people leading similar “twilight” existences. These people from all over the world build the motorways and railways, just as Irish navvies did (150 years ago) clean the offices and serve in the restaurants. Denied access to minimum wage legislation or health care they are an attractive option for many employers. The Home Office becomes the discipline of these workers.
It was only when it was “discovered” that the Home Office itself was cleaned by “illegals” that the media took up the cry and attacked Liam Byrne for even considering an amnesty.
In Spain an amnesty was granted in 2005 for all illegals and of the 700,000 who applied for regularisation 557,000 were granted. It is widely reported that this has gone a long way towards deconstructing Spain’s informal economy, and it must be increasing tax revenues for the Spanish Government.
In Britain “Migration Watch”, a rather sinister Right wing organisation has led the attacks on the Transport and General Workers Union for their call for the regularisation of all workers in Britain. This is a brave and principled demand by the Union who recognise the obvious rubric that an illegal worker is an exploited worker and can be used to damage all.
In Britain 25,000 asylum applications were received last year and under Immigration Laws the highest ever number were being detained, 2,250 as of March 31st. The system that operates to deny benefits to “failed” applications is brutal and inhumane. It is supposed to be a deterrent to people seeking safety in Britain; in reality it drives people underground where they are prey to exploitation and danger. It makes no sense to continue this policy; instead of brutality of poverty we need humanity and recognition of the needs and rights of everyone. We also need the mainstream media to recognise the enormous contribution made to the economies of Europe by migrant workers. The alterative is the brutality of detention and starvation.
On a wider scale the treatment of the economic needs of West Africa is so cavalier that it drives the poorest to do what the poor of Europe did in the 19th Century by migrating elsewhere in the hope of a better life.
Those who make up the “fourth world” suffer terrible exploitation, no rights at work or home, and a constant fear of persecution by populist politicians. It is past time their voices were heard.
Housing needs
June 21, 2006
Later today there will be a debate in Parliament about housing policies, as the issue at long last begins to climb the political agenda.
The issue is very stark. The number of households in Britain is increasing by 189,000 per year and the total number of dwellings constructed is 150,000. Thus every year there is a 40,000 increase in the gap between supply and need, thus compounding a problem that is already there.
House prices are rising very fast all over the country with the highest in London and South East but other areas rising quickly. Increasingly many in work simply cannot afford to buy anywhere and thus have to stay with their parents if possible, or rent at exorbitant private sector levels. Indeed the biggest and most lucrative mortgage market is now in “buy to let”.
For those in desperate housing need the option of a council dwelling is fast reducing. In London and the South East the number on Council registers for housing has increased by over 70 percent. According to Government figures the number of households on the waiting list has grown from 1,019,475 in 1997 to 1,548,083 today.
For the vast majority on those lists there is no hope whatsoever of being allocated a place under current policies.
The background to the problem is not hard to find.
Post World War Two there was an acceptance that the awful housing conditions that the majority lived in could only be dealt with by Council building. Huge building programmes from 1945 to 1980 produced many good homes and ensured many lived decently; it also produced some awful system built estates as the rules of accountancy and density took over from human scales in 1960s and 1970s. In 1979 the outgoing Labour Government presided over the construction of 100,000 council homes.
Thatcher’s Tories had an ideological obsession about destroying Council housing and creating a market to meet demand. The introduction of the “right to buy” at huge discounts meant tens of thousands of homes were sold. They also de-regulated the rent system so boldly done by the 1974 to 79 Labour Government, promoted Housing Associations at the expense of local authorities and restricted Housing Benefit payments to “market rents”.
Very quickly the whole scene changed into a reduction in overall building levels and an emphasis on the private sector.
After 1997 a lot should have changed, but not everything did.
To their credit the Government did tackle the repair backlog. Tory cash restrictions forced Council’s to save on repairs and maintenance. The adoption of decent homes standard and money for renewals helped a lot, but like everything to do with New Labour it came with ideological baggage.
To qualify for estate improvement money Council’s had to establish an ALMO (arms length management organisation) or transfer their stock to a housing association. They also insisted that money be raised from land or building sales and that “mixed communities” be created in place of single landlord Council or Housing Association management.
The obsession with mixed communities seems to be one way. The working class cannot be trusted to live in one community runs the thinking; there are no Government plans to encourage social housing in Mayfair, Belgravia, Stoke Poges or Aldersley Edge. Indeed when developers are forced to provide a proportion of “social housing” in new developments they can find willing Councils who allow them to build elsewhere or simply pay the Authority to spend on social housing at some indeterminate time in the future. Anything, it seems, to avoid providing for those in most need.
The policy enunciated by John Prescott during his time as Minister responsible for housing has been of promoting the private sector and pressurising Councils into stock transfer or ALMO’s. He has resolutely rejected the “fourth option” of allowing Councils to build and run estates either from fear of phone calls from the Number 10 policy unit, or because he does not believe that Councils have a role in housing policy.
The poor result Labour achieved in last years General Election, especially in London and the even worse result in this year’s local elections have begun to concentrate minds.
The Government’s own study on housing by Kate Barker called for 200,000 net additional properties per year and in her study she made the point very clearly that social housing should be a priority.
However the Government’s policy is still skewed in favour of the private sector with only 75,000 new homes by 2008, the vast majority of which will be provided by Housing Associations. We are nowhere near even these modest targets. In 2004/5 a total of only 16,637 “social” dwellings were build in England, and only 6,175 in London where the need is at its most acute.
Unless the next spending review puts huge amounts of investment into housing, by Councils, the current crisis will intensify.
What is not measured in all this is the social effects of over-crowded flats on children, the pain of endlessly living in hostels or short term accommodation. Bad health, crime and family break up are all exacerbated by inadequate housing. The pain and strain of huge mortgage payments on young people simply trying to put a roof over their head is also a factor.
There is another huge area of waste. Housing Benefit to cover rent costs is paid to those in receipt of Income Support. There are market limits to what will be paid but in essence the system is of great benefit to unscrupulous private landlords.
In London a Council or Housing Association rent is usually around £100 per week for a flat. The private sector routinely charge at least double and I have come across cases of former council homes being rented for up to £400 per week. Housing Benefit pay most of this from the public purse. No normal thinking person would begrudge those in need having their rent being paid but would question a short sighted policy of refusing to invest in bricks and mortar and instead, subsidising the private sector.
There is also a benefit trap. Those placed in leased property at high rents by local authorities often cannot afford to work. To get a job and lose income support and up to £15,000 of housing benefit would soon result in homelessness. The situation calls for urgent market intervention to control rents and invest in housing for those in desperate need.
The Tory years proved that market solutions do not work in meeting social need. Eight years of New Labour have proved that a refusal to undo the Tory years has cost many poor people very dearly as they are forced to live in expensive poor quality rented accommodation.
Now is an excellent time to change policy and leave the Tory years behind.
Human rights
June 14, 2006
Yesterday a US military defender appeared on the BBC TV Breakfast show to condemn the Military hearings for Guantanamo Detainees as a “Show Trial”. He pointed out that his defendant had three possible outcomes; guilty, innocent or mis-trial. For the unfortunate accused person the result is the same. Whatever decision is reached by the tribunal he will remain in detention in Guantanamo Bay.
Tomorrow the House of Commons will debate the Foreign Office official Human Rights Report on the situation world-wide and the British Government’s response.
The concept of the report and its contents are a throw-back to the heady days of 1997 when the then new Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook, outlined his plans for foreign policy “with an ethical dimension”. This was always bitterly resented by some of the mandarins in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It started to founder with the Downing Street inspired policy of selling arms to Indonesia. It finally lost any fig leaf of credibility with the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In the past week alone we have had reports of the killing of a family enjoying a day on the beach in Gaza, deaths of Afghans and a British soldier in southern Afghanistan, deaths of immigrants in Mexico.
Media obsession with Wayne Rooney’s foot and the drunken antics of football supporters in Germany has anaesthetised us to the many other (unreported) disasters around the world such as the continuing deaths of African migrants trying to reach the Canary Islands.
However the Government’s of Europe showed a commendable sense of timing and coordination of news management to collectively rubbish the Marty Report on the (secret) CIA flights over Europe taking (unknown) suspects for questioning from airports outside Europe to strange destinations to be questioned in a place where international conventions do not apply.
Later this month the new United Nations Human Rights Council will go into session in Geneva and discuss its mode of operation. Whilst the old Human Rights Commission was undoubtedly cumbersome in its workings it did appoint rapparteurs on continuing Human Rights violations such as the treatment of the Palestinians and one of its former High Commissioners, Mary Robinson was the subject of US led vilification.
Until the Human Rights Council announces its methods of working and the possible five yearly reviews of every member state’s internal human rights record those who are serious about International Law and Human Rights should be cautious.
Explicit in the UN Charter and the Human Rights Declaration is the role of non state actors, (civil society), in the work of the Human Rights Commission. As of now it is far from clear what role they will play in the new Human Rights Council.
It is essential that civil society be represented so that the treatment of Dalit Peoples, indigenous minorities, women groups and, for example, bonded labour, is represented in Geneva.
The past experience has not always been a happy one with continual efforts by Governments to reduce contribution times of specific groups to as little a three minutes and often forcing the long suffering voluntary groups to speak late at night to an almost empty conference chamber. However the importance of a civil group being able to publicly challenge their Government cannot be under-estimated. This has been effective for Colombian rural groups, Dalit peoples and groups such as the Chagos Islanders.
The European Union member states for some curious reason is represented collectively at Geneva by the Presidency thus it is made more difficult to criticise individual states all of whom have individual legal systems.
The UK Government has been criticised in the past and deserves to be for the treatment of asylum seekers and the whole trend of Anti Terrorist legislation which is in breach of the Human Rights Act and derogations have been sought on this.
The US is quite rightly condemned for Guantanamo Bay but the UK should also be condemned for the treatment of defendants in Belmarsh and the Special Immigration Appeals Courts where he defendant is denied knowledge of the charge against them.
The Marty Report to the all nation Council of Europe on Extraordinary Rendition flights makes salutary reading. In ninety six pages the Swiss Parliamentarian outlines the way in which fourteen European countries colluded in the transfer of suspects by the USA.
His conclusions in this well researched report should send a shiver down the spines of all European Interior Ministers who are accustomed to defending the moral superiority of European justice systems.
The twelve concluding points of Marty’s report is that a ‘spider’s web’ has been spun across the globe by CIA flights.
He concludes that two per cent of all flights by the CIA cause him concern and that in the case of Poland and Romania landing points remain unexplained and could well be the place for illegal detentions. In the absence of satisfactory explanations from member states the allegation must be taken very seriously.
Marty also points out that whilst the report is addressed to European member states it is the USA that has created this “reprehensible network” and that European countries have been either intentional or grossly negligent in their collusion.
He does not spare blushes; when the news of the rendition flights first appeared some European leaders hinted that they were victims of CIA plots. He quite bluntly points out that this does not correspond with reality.
The report is not the basis for prosecution but quite clearly but holds the member states responsible for “failing to comply with the positive obligations to diligently investigate serious allegations of fundamental rights violations”.
It names Sweden, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the UK, Italy, Macedonia, Germany and Turkey for individual cases. Poland and Germany for secret detention centres; Germany, Turkey, Spain and Cyprus for staging flights; Ireland, UK, Portugal, Greece and Italy for ‘stopovers’. Kosovo is described as a legal “black hole”.
The European countries have, by Treaty, a positive obligation to investigate all abuses of human rights.
The responding silence is deafening.
International human rights debates have traditionally fallen into the two camps of the “collective” view that human rights is about basic provisions of food, water, health care, education and housing. The other being the “individual” view that it is about rights of fair trial, expression, assembly and association. The UN charter specifically includes both concepts.
The world since 2001 and the “War on terror” taken together with the Bush-Blair analysis that there is a moral duty on the west to intervene around the world effectively merges both concepts. We have the systematic abuse of human rights and law by the most powerful nations in the world whilst at the same time parading their liberal credentials for increasingly sceptical home audiences.
Maybe in July the newspapers will even find front page space to report these matters.
Cuba notes
June 7, 2006
Tele Sur, the satellite channel, launched in Caracas with the support of Cuba and Bolivia, may turn out to be the most significant event in Latin America.
I watched Tele Sur programmes on TV in Cuba last week and wondered how Cuban people felt about it. Hitherto they have only had Cuban TV or imported programmes or, more recently, access to CNN and Sky world channels.
The view that they all put is of material gain and advantage; high pressure conspicuous consumption being presented to a society with very different values.
Tele Sur, the Latin American version of Al Jazeera in some ways means that the world of news has changed forever.
CNN and Sky present Bolivia’s oil nationalisation as a grab of resources by the government. Tele Sur explains that only the public ownership of the assets can give any hope to the people of Bolivia to overcome poverty and hunger by the use of their most precious natural resource. It has meant that the conformity of the western media is constantly challenged. Al Jazeera has changed the way the world looks at the Middle East. It is clear that Tele Sur will change the outlook of Latin America and its image in the world.
From the Cuban point of view the feeling of isolation is reduced markedly.
Cuba is coming out of a very hard period. From the late 1980s the support from the Soviet Union reduced, and then by 1991 had almost disappeared. The “special period” of over 10 years was when all the analysts in the USA and Europe expected the country to collapse, and the rich pickings fall into the hands of those who have plotted against Cuba. It didn’t, and despite all the hardships the country survived.
The scale of the changes that Cuba has had to cope with are enormous; in the lifetime of an elderly Cuban the country has gone from being a military dictatorship under Batista with all the accompanying repression and poverty, to the Revolution of 1959 with all the hope it brought. As part of COMECON, Cuba relied heavily on imported goods from the Soviet Union and Central Europe, and in return it provided sugar and other basic exports. The collapse of the Soviet system left Cuba vulnerable and forced to change very rapidly to produce more of its own food and find new exports. Tourism is vital but the other success is the revolution itself. Without the revolution of 1959 Cuba would not have become a leading centre for medical care, biotechnology and medical training.
But mere survival is not enough; the Revolution of 1959 was about the emancipation of people, rights for women, the end of racism and opportunities for all. Even with the fairest wind, any of these things would be difficult to achieve, and it is easy for outsiders to forget the blockade by the USA. It is now 56 years since it was imposed, and the effects are obvious: a huge level of military spending to defend against the USA, and shortages of everything coupled with the absurdity of being unable to trade with the nearest neighbour.
The transport system is generally seen as quaint; spotting the US gas guzzlers of the 1950s cruising around Cuba is evocative, as are the odd British cars of the 1960s such as the long forgotten Hillman Minx. Soviet cars seem to have fared less well, with mainly Ladas being used as Taxis. Train travel is a special adventure, with doors that cannot close, and windows that are either permanently open or have steel sheets welded over them to compensate for a shortage of glass. I found myself looking at the bearing manufacturers to see if the bogies were from Argentina or Romania.
In Havana there is a large mural on a wall, consisting of pieces of a puzzle of light and dark shades. The light ones are all chaotic and jumbled and labelled NEO LIBERALISMO; the darker contrasting pieces neatly fit together as SOCIALISMO.
The experts in the USA who imminently predict Cuba’s collapse forget that despite the faded charm of the cities, the empty roads and far from luxurious housing, there is something quite unique.
No other country in the entire continent has totally free education from nursery to university, equally free health care, and a system that ensures everyone is at least housed and has the opportunity to work. Basic food prices are protected by the rationing system and the national currency.
The contrast with Jamaica, independent since 1962, or any Central American country are enormous. The obvious gaps between the rich and poor throughout the region are accompanied by very high crime rates and personal violence.
Nicaragua, whose 1979 Revolution was dashed after 10 years, is now the poorest country in mainland Latin America, with a poverty level only worsened by Haiti is an example of what US “liberation” brings.
However, it is precisely the image of “choice” and consumerism that younger Cubans are confronted with in youth culture. The siren voices in Miami that call for change in Cuba never talk about the real effects of market economies: markets raise food prices, charge for health and education, and bring the insecurity so apparent everywhere else.
I was able to meet people in the more remote rural areas of Cuba and was struck by how hard they worked at farming and fishing, as well as the very practical and ambitious young people. In the house of a horse driver I met his granddaughters who proudly told me about their school and the older girl’s ambition to be an agronomist. The family were poor in many ways, as was their whole community, still trying to recover from the hurricane. One had lived in Miami but come back as he felt more secure. I couldn’t help thinking about this - swapping car-ridden Miami for a horse and cart in Pinar del Rio.
For all the anger of the US political leadership towards Cuba, there is a very pro American attitude in Cuba. Baseball is a national obsession as are American films.
Later this year Cuba hosts the Non Aligned Movement Conference in Havana. I hope the Conference is able to discuss the unique trade agreement entered into by Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia which allows for exchanges of goods and services such as education and medicine, but also requires the systematic elimination of poverty and use of oil revenues to achieve it. Beyond the economic and political issues that the Movement will discuss, the unipolar world of the USA can be challenged by example.
The hatred of the USA towards Cuba was never anything to do with a military threat. It is an obsession dating back to wanting Cuba as a colony from the 19th century onwards; it is now the threat of example. If Cuba can achieve free education and health care, why not Nicaragua or Guatemala?
